Axis of Bob

Rebounding defenders is a strength and weakness of the Dogs. It is also a strength and weakness of Hawthorn. Do you thinkk that Gilham was playing for his wonderful defnsive spoiling ability? They have Croad as a lockdown player and the rest of them run amok. They play the zone defence so their man on man contesting is less important. We would not have a purely offensive backline, but a strong and flexible backline that both attacks and defends, like Geelong's. I'm talking about how a side with clear deficiencies in its backline has been able to be clearly in the top 3 in the competition this year, including beating Hawthorn in Tasmania. They did this by winning the midfield and kicking goals with their small forward line. They didn't need to have a Buddy to win the game, as they attacked with a forward line that worked for them. A more flexible forward line allows them to be more effective against a wider array of teams, but their small forward line will generally work well for them. Brisbane has two of the more formidable forwards in the competition in Brown and Bradshaw. They finished 10th for average goals scored but 6th in inside 50s. The Bulldogs finished 3rd (2nd i50). Richmond finished 5th (11th i50). St Kilda, with Riewoldt and Koschitske, finished 12th (14th i50). There's no correlation between these numbers and it shows that any forward line can work, depending on the talent of your midfield and forwards. As far as Miller being proven on if he kicks 60+ goals, I'll just pull you up. That's horse crap. Miller was excellent this year and you, I and everyone here knows it. Don't think you can make rubbish claims like that an get away with it as it only shows that you are more interested in winning the argument and saving face than you are about being right. As a Comparison, how about one of the media's more lauded key forwards: Travis Cloke. Disposals: 14.2 (Cloke 13.5) Contested marks: 0.7 (1.5) Tackles: 2.6 (1.8) Goals: 1.4 (1.7) 1%ers: 3.1 (2.6) Errors: 5.5 (7.6) Statistically he had an excellent season in a side that was ranked 16th for inside 50s compared to Collingwood's 3rd ranking, and he has proven that he is a capable AFL key forward. The Doggies would absolutely kill for him. Now don't besmirch Miller for some cheap point scoring. What?!?!? Why do you think we recruit players? We're not recruiting them so that we can put their names in a spreadsheet and compare them during the school chess club meetings!! These players are being recruited to play on match day. We need to be able to kick goals against opposition backlines. Try to challenge yourself into thinking about what works effectively rather than simply being able to put a team down in specific positions on a whiteboard. The game isn't played on a computer, it's played on match day. Bailey wants to recruit the players that will most effectively serve his plan on match day. I, personally, find that logic works best for me. I find it an important tool in forming opinions and creating ideas and concepts. We have already shut them down once. And you are getting far too emotional in your argument by using the phrase "unparalleled might" when describing their forward line. Buddy is a good player, but Garland and Hudgton have already shown that he is susceptible to defenders with genuine speed. He's a good player but he's by no means invicible. Roughie is an honest trier with good athleticism and power, but is a low possession player. Warnock has shown that even he has the potential to cover him. To think that, in time, Martin or Rivers won't surpass Warnock's current level is, as before, just making cheap statements to score worthless points. Furthermore, any available key defender would clearly not have been at a high enough standard to warrant throwing away a draft pick on. As I said before, you don't win a flag by comparing teams on a spreadsheet. An extra NQR key defender just would be a player sitting in the VFL behind all of the players mentioned above. You set unrealistic expectations on young key defenders. There is a list of full backs in the game and their games played in their first few years in the James Frawley thread earlier this year (post #66 http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...0&start=40). To have Garland and Martin do so well in their 2nd and 1st season respectively is a massive positive. Plus Frawley has only played 2 years. There's no way yet of telling where DB is innovating because it's too early for him to show that. He's had two drafts and has shown that he's very keen to draft players with very good running ability and excellent skills. How he uses them? I guess we'll find out! But to say that we are just drafting the same ways as we did for the last 10 years is just emotional drivel. It does reinforce why you want KPPs though, given that youa re focussed on the ND era so much. I don't remember the last time we had a midfielder who runs like a whippet and kicks with great skill. We drafted 5 of them on the weekend. Name me 5 super skilled and super quick MFC players in the last 10 years. "Unquestionably an ironclad rule?" Sounds like hyperbole. The only rules are the ones in the book, and even they are not iron clad. When was the last time a team won a flag without playing directly man on man around the ground? When was the first time? Has the game changed and will it continue to change? I could equally argue that the CHF role is now dead due to the speed of the modern game. I could also argue that Hawthorn doesn't have a CHF, that Buddy plays FF and Roughy plays FP. CHF is dead because moving the ball through a marking target outside 50 is too slow to get the ball to a FF before the midfielders flood back into defence and take their space away. So the ball is now run through this area through 'run and carry', or via a wide range of mid sized forwards and midfielders. By kicking the ball to a CHF you invite a contest and turnover which will catch your defence out of position, resulting in a counterattacking goal to the opposition. This is the reason why small forward lines seem to function as well as tall forward lines in the modern game. So you're not trying to recruit Buddy, you're trying to improve on Buddy. Firstly, we did just recruit Jack Watts, and secondly your expectations are (Dr Cox voice) "really really really ra-ah-heeeeeeeeeellllyyy" too high. If you were in 2001 then requiring more KPPs would be an "absolute rule of the game". It isn't and you are. I've since showed you how this statement is a load of steaming horse turd. And you clearly stated that you don't know what DB's plan is, so presuming that he's trying to emulate the Dogs is very foolish. You see how you are stuck in 2001 again? And also your unrealistic expectations? If we keep trying to recruit a 'great' spine (Ablett, Carey etc) then we'll never get around to winning a flag. Brisbane was the last team to have a great spine, and they also had a great midfield. Since then, no premiership team has had a great spine. And once we have a great spine then we'll only have about 4 years to recruit and develop a great midfield to play in a premiership. Hmmmmmm, seems a little far fetched. Neither Gaertner nor DeBoer can kick to save themselves. Embarrassingly poor kicks. In the modern game, where maintaining possession of the ball (especially midfielders) is paramount (and is obviously a focus of DB) I will bet London to a brick that we don't choose either of these players in the PSD. Sibosado, I've heard, is a bit timid despite his talent. It didn't work for Aaron Rogers, despite his talent. I don't think we see KPPs as a deficiency, so I'd highly doubt that we'd take a key position player. My money would be on a skillful midfielder - hopefully on that wins clearances. Thanks for listening!

It's positive because I understand where we are as a team and the development left within the players I mentioned. It's not like I'm saying that Warnock is the answer to all of our problems. The problem with the Dogs is that they don't have a backline (certainly when Williams is unavailable) that is strong enough or flexible enough to shut down all types of forward line. The Bulldogs are clearly int he top 3 teams, and that is without a strong, flexible backline nor any power forward. We have at least one power forward now (Watts), possibly 3 (with the now proven Miller and speculative Newton). We don't need to kick goals in the same way that Hawthorn do, because we need to kick goals against their backline, not their forward line. A strong and flexible defence allows us to cover a tall forwardline line Hawthorn, a small forwardline like the Dogs or a midsized forward line like Geelong. And with Martin, Rivers, Garland, Frawley and Warnock, we can find a combination that will cover these three scenarios (especially with the versatility of Garland and Frawley). Why do people always want to follow the leader? If you follow the leader you will always be behind the leader. Start your own line and make it a better line that the other. We followed the leader (Brisbane) with strong bodies and the game changed, similarly with run and carry (West Coast). With Bailey at least he has a vision of what will be successful and it doesn't involve following the leader. Have a look at all of the clubs (and supporters) who are trying to recruit the next Buddy Franklin. But he's not there, because they aren't Buddy. Have a vision of what's going to beat teams like that and then recruit that way - not by copying them. I don't think we need KPPs. The cries for KPPs come from supporters stuck in 2001, combined with Hawthorn's success this year, so they will always think we don't have enough KPPs unless our spine is Lockett, Carey, Hird, Jackovich and Scarlett. It's easy to see KPPs on the ground when you are watching because that is the last thing you see before the goal, but the midfield is what is really killing us because that's what creates the goal in the first place. And ours is complete rubbish. In 2002-2006 we still had a crap midfield, but we had a team that was very well suited to playing Daniher's long kicking contested game. Unfortunately that team is no good at doing what Bailey wants, and he's going to recruit players that are. Main point = if you're folling someone else, you'll always be behind.

Our key defensive stocks are actually very well off at the moment. How people could say that we needed to recruit another key defender is beyond me. I believe that a good side is built on a strong and flexible defence, with a skillful and hard running midfield and then you can set up your forward line however you choose to (ie, depending on what cattle you have up forward. As Hawthorn which forward lines do well against them, and they wwill tell you that they have a weakness against small mobile forward lines. Other sides, like the Dogs, struggle against taller forward lines. But each team has a different forward setup. Not every team has a Buddy/Roughy style setup, and not every team has a mobile setup like Richmond. What you need is a flexible defence that can negate various forward lines. I believe that we have the cornerstones of that defence, but what we need is time (and good small defenders). I think we've seen enough of Martin, Garland and Rivers to know that they're going to be good players. Should nothing else happen then we have a tall and flexible defence amongst them. Martin - gorilla tamer, Garland - tall runner, Rivers - zoning tall/third man up. Two of those are only new into the game and have shown exceptional improvement in a short period. Add to that we have Frawley (yet to find his feet, but can play tall or small) and Warnock (good, honest player with speed). I think we are very well catered for with tall defenders and I wouldn't look any further with them. Now, with tall forwards. I think that if you take a key forward at pick 1 you must have faith that he will become a good player. Brad Miller has proved to us that he is a more than competent player and we have the unknown Newton around. But we also have the likes of Bate, Sylvia and Dunn as midsized options. Even if we play with just one tall forward, we will still be able to kick goals regularly if our defence and midfield are good enough. Just because Hawthorn won the flag this year doesn't mean that it is the only way to structure your forward line. Geelong won a flag (should have been two) with the mediocre Mooney as its main focal point and a host of midsized/small options around. There's more than one way to skin a cat. And I think we all know that our midfield is slow and unskilled. I'm very happy to pick up speed and skill in the draft, and don't see us needing to pick up key forwards as a priority. Why should we pick a speculative key forward over a clearly needed midfielder, just because we want to kick our goals in a different way?

If we choose either Watts or Naitanui I'll be happy. Watts has been widely discussed and we all know that he's a great talent. Naitanui is really hard to get a handle on, so you'd have to back in the recruiting staff. Pinpointing Naitanui is too hard for me to do, but it's Barry's job to do just that. If Naita develops then there is no equal to what he can achieve, but will he? I won't be physically ill with either of them. Actually I've got a big Friday night planned so at 10am I could be throwing up anyway.

Do you think Barry Prendagast gives out as much information as Craig Cameron did? It sounds like Burgan has far less info on our picks this year than last year. I, personally, would be surprised if Roughead came to us at 19. It wouldn't surpise me to see us look closely at Dayne Beams, though.

Nobody is saying that we should be going for small defenders with our early picks. You won't be able to pick up a speedy, skillful midfielder with pick 51, nor will you be able to pick a dominant power forward at 51. These are the sorts of picks you can use to get a small defender. I would like us to, like old55, pick 1 KPF and at least 2 midfielders in our first 4 picks. The other pick I'd use on either a 2nd KPF or 3rd midfielder. After that I'd be more inclined to look at a raw ruckman and a small defender. That's how I'd do it. I'd actually probably look at someone like Klemke at either 35 or 51. If you look at Hawthorn they actually set up their entire win through the quality of their small defenders. I don't rate, at this stage, either of the bottom age small defenders we drafted last year. Cheney is tough, a good kick, honest and accountable - but really is not quick, which is a real problem if he's going to play as a 'lock down small'. McNamara has pace, is also a very good kick and a nice small defender's size. Unfortunately he plays like a tall defender with his suspect agility, but is too small to do that. Whelan is clearly our best small defender and I struggle to see us replacing him with players from our current list.

I can see where old's going with this with regards to small defenders. Our current defenders are not high quality enough, especially with their disposal. The way Bailey is trying to have the side play it requires clean and precise ball movement from defence. Our current defenders were drafted to play a different game plan than what Bailey wants them to play. Wrecker is our best small defender with good disposal and it is no surprise that he was very good in that role for Bailey. On the other hand players like Bell and Bartram who were good for Daniher were exposed for their poor disposal (Bartram) or awareness (Bell). Wheatley played as a running defender and had one of his best seasons to date because he can run and kick the ball. To say that Geelong had no small defenders is a lie, with players like Milburn, Wojcinski, Hunt and, for large part of the year, Scarlett. Hawthorn have a plethora of small defenders, such as Brown, Birchall, Ladson, Guerra, Hodge (late in the year) and these players were the driving force behind their GF victory. However, I think the role of a small defender is changing somewhat. With teams zoning as much as they do, disposal is more important for a small defender than the ability to lock someone down. Defenders are not as often found one out as they used to. That said, having some quality small/medium defenders is certainly something that, I agree, we should look to. Perhaps not necessarily early in the draft, but I certainly wouldn't ignore it. Especially with our desire to move the ball precisely from defence.

Why would Bentley 'slot nicely into our 22? Have you seen him play before?

I really like Jack Watts as a footballer. He's fast, clever, good size, great hands, good kick, great mover and brilliant decision maker. But he is definitely not a physical player. And it is definitely a concern, especially as a key forward that is expected to do the hard things such as crash packs and throw their body around. If he was of average toughness then he'd be number 1 pick in a flash, IMO. Will he improve as he gets bigger, or will he wilt when the opposition bodies get bigger? It's a tough question. It's dangerous to base all of your judgement of these players on a few minute long youtube clips, although they do give people a taste of their style of football. Now which of the 3 candidates can the Wizard of Oz fix: The Lion, looking for courage, The Scarecrow, looking for a brain, or The Tinman, who is looking for a heart?

Hawthorn didn't have the skills or capacity to carry out the game plan either about 4 years ago. "Kick the bloody thing long" is just a throwback to an era that has long since been cut apart by the fast running, possession based counter attacking teams that we see today.

Freak, that's a very old fashioned point of view. Why do you think Hawthorn won this year? Why were Geelong the most dominant team this year? Geelong were first for disposals, with 34 more possessions per game than any other team, yet were only 6th for long kicks. They were the most dominant team all year and the secret was clearly maintaining possession of the ball and not giving the opposition a chance to get it back. Hawthorn have had a drafting policy where they only draft kids that can kick. And any unskilled player can boot the ball long. The kicking skills are entirely related to maintaining possession of the ball. By kicking the ball long you give the opposition a chance to get the ball from you. That's the way the game is heading.

In the end, if we are not willing to pay up the big bucks to lure players over to our club then we will not lure them. If we really wanted Prismall, or really wanted Warnock then there was a way for us to get them. It would have involved paying way over the odds for them, but we weren't willing to do that so they did not come to us. I don't have a problem with that because the price you pay for these players is usually in excess of what value you will get for them (both in a trade and in terms of salary cap space). If you don't want to lose players then you just pay them more or give them longer contracts. Look at what we did with the likes of Woewodin, Yze and Bizzell with 3 year contracts. We can keep these players if we want to. However there is an associated price involved with splurging money to keep players. It means that you will lose players later on when the salary cap room dries up. We are currently at the base of our cycle. It is not prudent to be setting an example that we will give big contracts for the future, especially for periods when we are having success. That's what Hawthorn have done and now they have a premiership and are not paying 100% of the cap. Geelong have done so too and have been dominant yet have not lost players. I have no problem with this. Especially if giving that message results in the loss of only CJ. We nearly lost Green with this policy too, but Green is probably a unique character in this day and age - a refreshingly honourable one.

Really? Well if that's the case then the integrity of the process is already compromised. IMO it shouldn't be up to the AFL to report the results of testing because they have too great an interest in the results of those tests. If they find a player who has a 3rd strike who is a poster boy for the league, then what incentive could the AFL possibly have to announce the result? They certainly don't want another Cousins saga on their hands after the damage to the brand that it caused. Hmmmm, very strange.

I think there were certainly be a perception amongst the clubs, if the testing was being run by the AFL itself, that the AFL would have the ability to supress results for players if they deemed a positive result to be bad for the game. And it would not be good for the game if there was a perception that the AFL wasn't completely even handed with the detection and announcement of players who have had a third strike. If the AFL has the ability to supress certain test results because of the consequences then the 'integrity' of the process, perceived or otherwise, requires that it be run by an independent authority.

The first list lodgement date with the AFL is Friday 31 October at 2pm. We will lodge our initial list of 35 (max) after the trade period and before the 31st of October. As such Yze, White, Bode and Weetra will not have yet been removed from the official list until we formally lodge our preliminary pre-draft playing list by 31/10. Until then they are technically still players on our list, but ones that have been told will not be on our list next year.

If you take your information from David Schwarz, then I am feeling pretty confident.

The players are still contracted to us, therefor we are still able to trade them (given the trading rules of the AFL, such as requiring the consent of the player in question). We would have simply told the players that their contracts were not going to be renewed.

Player contracts run out after trade week, so we are able to trade them.

I don't think any of us are in a position to judge who the best available player is, since all it is is an individual opinion. I hear on the radio last night that West Coast will take Naitanui if they had pick 2, and they need to build up their midfield again too. If true, perhaps West Coast don't rate him as the best available talent. Stephen Wells, Geelong's recruiting manager, stated that if he had pick 1 he'd take Watts. To come on here and just tell everyone that he is the best player, when there is no proof of that (just your opinion) is arrogant and misleading. I could make an argument that if we're picking solely on type that we should take Rich first before Naitanui, Watts and Vickery. As for who is the best of that lot, I would personally find it very hard to make a distinction. I suspect that most recruiting managers would also find it difficult to separate them purely based on talent, as each of the players is so different. Rich is a classy and damaging midfielder, Naitanui the freak athletic ruckman, Vickery is the man mountain pure footballer and Watts is a highly athletic goal kicker with freakish ball skills. I could easily make an argument that each is the best available. Rich is the best available because of his ability to use the ball cleanly in contests. Plus he is a very good player who is highly damaging and is well developed already. Watts is the best available because he has a rare combination of athleticism, ball skills and decision making skills that are seldom found in a player with his height. He was the best performed player in the carnival despite having to balance his football with elite basketball and has enormous scope to improve. Naitanui is the best available because his athleticism and height, combined with his contested ball winning, tackling and competitiveness in the contests, give him the tools to take the game to levels that were never though possible. He may be a risk but the upside makes him the best available. Vickery is the best available because he is the prototype of the modern ruckman but with far better skills, footy smarts and athleticism. He is big, has a frame that will make him a man mountain and aggression for the contests. Plus he can play forward if required and is still far from his peak after recovering from knee surgery. I could just as easily make arguments why they shouldn't be number one.

I quite like Vandelay, but he's probably one of a number of players that could go in the 20-35 range. I personally don't see him pushing up any higher than mid second round, but there's a chance that West Coast (or maybe even us) would look at him with a priority pick. He's got a lot of upside and the reward could be massive, but I do worry about his intensity at times. I think a lot of what happens on draft day will come down to the interview.

Prismall is a good, honest player. Nothing fantastic, but performs his role reasonably well in a very, very good side. I wouldn't mind him playing a role in our side too. But I'm with goodoil. If we even look near our first 3 picks in suggesting a trade for Prismall, then we're stuffed. He's just not that good, and those picks in this draft are worth a lot.

Yarran won't go at 17, but it sure as hell won't be because we pass on him!!!

It appears that we will know whether or not we will be picking Watts with pick 1 well before the draft itself. Because if Watts nominates it will be because we have told him that we will select him with pick 1. If he doesn't nominate it is because we have said we would be choosing someone else instead. He has no need to nominate this year unless he is guaranteed to stay in Melbourne. Only one team can give him that guarantee and that is us.

Young is no matchup problem, since he never plays on anyone! Hawthorn play the game a bit differently than a lot of teams because of the way the set up their midfield defensively. Players like Dew, Guerra and Ellis are able to function well enough in their team as designated ball users because their midfield zones and is not accountable one on one. Their defenders obviously need to be more flexible, but their midfield certainly shows no leaning towards the taller types since they load their numbers into a zone. I don't see this as an argument either for or against picking Watts, though. Since they play different positions and have very different strengths and weaknesses, their height is on relevant in assessing their ability to play their position. Saying we should pick up Watts because he's 6'4 and Rich is only 6'1 is flawed.

Thorp re-signed, Dowler is still in contract.